Chronic venous disease (CVD) is a frequently encountered disease that progresses with age. Although the principal method of evaluation and diagnosis is Doppler ultrasound, routine laboratory tests may be an easier and more accessible way to evaluate CVD progression. The present retrospective study evaluated the laboratory results of 256 patients diagnosed with CVD. According to the Clinical, Etiological, Anatomical and Pathophysiological classification, depending on the CVD stage, patients were stratified into three groups: Group 1 (C2‑C3; mild disease), Group 2 (C4; moderate to severe disease) and Group 3 (C5‑C6; severe disease). The considered parameters were age, red blood cell count (RBC), white blood cell count (WBC) and platelet count (PLT), percentage of neutrophils and lymphocytes, neutrophil‑to‑lymphocyte ratio (NLR), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C‑reactive protein (CRP), fibrinogen, prothrombin time (in percentages and seconds), internal normalized ratio, activated partial thromboplastin time, creatine kinase (CK), CK myocardial band, alanine transaminase, aspartate transaminase, total bilirubin and urea. No significant differences among the groups were noted in RBC, WBC, PLT and coagulation factors; on the other hand, inflammatory markers exhibited differences among the groups. Several differences were observed in hepatic, metabolic and muscle tissue markers. Intraluminal thrombus formation in the case of varicose veins (thrombophlebitis) may be due to conditions of turbulent flow, stasis and endothelial inflammation, rather than hypercoagulability. The results of the present study confirmed the implication of inflammatory factors in pathophysiological modifications, including thickening of venous walls and valvular modification, as well as the appearance of intraluminal thrombi and trophic lesions. NLR, ESR, CRP and fibrinogen were increased with CVD progression and may be considered useful markers in evaluating CVD progression. Simple blood tests may provide phlebologists with additional insight for the management of those patients.

Background: Transarterial Radioembolization (TARE) is an effective treatment option for both primary and secondary liver malignancies. However, challenging anatomical conditions can lead to prolonged fluoroscopy times (FT), elevated doses of periprocedural X-radiation (DAP), and increased use of contrast agents (CAs). In this study, we examined the influence of our radiologists’ experience and the choice of microspheres on X-ray exposure and CA doses in TARE. Material and Methods: Datasets comprising 161 TARE and 164 preprocedural evaluation angiographies (TARE-EVA) were analyzed. Our study focused on assessing DAP, FT, and CA concerning both microsphere types, the radiologist’s experience, and whether the same radiologist performed both the TARE-EVA and the actual TARE. Results: In TARE, the use of resin microspheres resulted in significantly higher FT and CA compared to glass microspheres (14.3 ± 1.6 min vs. 10.6 ± 1.1 min and 43 ± 2.2 mL vs. 33.6 ± 2.1 mL, p < 0.05), with no notable differences in DAP (p = 0.13). Experienced radiologists demonstrated reduced FT/DAP, with a 19% decrease in DAP and 53% in FT during the evaluation angiography (p < 0.05) and a 49% reduction in DAP during the actual TARE (p < 0.05), with no statistical differences in FT. Performing TARE and TARE-EVA under the same radiologist led to a 43% reduction in DAP and a 25% decrease in FT (p < 0.05, respectively). Conclusions: To mitigate X-radiation exposure, it is advisable for radiologists to undergo thorough training, and, ideally, the same radiologist should conduct both the TARE and the TARE-EVA. While the use of glass spheres may decrease intraarterial CA, it does not significantly impact periprocedural X-ray exposure.